The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department, A. P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and The
Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad are the appellants in this
appeal.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 14358 of 2001 confirming the
judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal at Hyderabad allowing the Original Application No. 6755 of 2000 filed
by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued by the appellant in
G.O.Ms. No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated
28.10.2000.

The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal be noted briefly
and they are as follows:

The respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Deputy Director,
Town and Country Planning in the Municipal Administration Department at Hyderabad.

The Anti-Corruption Department Bureau registered a case on 30.9.1992 under
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent
herein and investigated into the case. The Director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Government of Andhra Pradesh, submitted a report to the Government with
regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent herein and
recommended to refer the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Hyderabad for enquiry against the charged officer into the allegations of
acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income and
also the violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and
to submit a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal after
conducting thorough inquiry and giving full opportunity to the parties
submitted its report on 2.6.1997 finding the respondent M.Adinarayana guilty
under both the charges framed against him. The Government after considering the
report of the Tribunal by Memo No. 1593/82/93-6 MA & UD dated 24.9.1997
issued a show cause notice to the respondent herein calling for his explanation
to the findings given by the Tribunal.

The respondent instead of giving his explanation to the show cause notice,
filed O.A. No. 7490 of 1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
challenging the show cause notice. The same was dismissed by its order dated
27.4.1998. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and reserved liberty to
the charged officer to raise all objections as to the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal as other issues before the Government in response to the show cause
notice dated 24.9.1997. The Government once again issued a Memo to the
respondent herein to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his
explanation initially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enquire
into the charge No.1 and thereafter on 31.3.1999, submitted his reply with
respect to the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The
Government on consideration of the entire matter and explanation given by the
respondent, issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.520-MA & UD dated 28.10.2000
removing the respondent herein from service (Annexure P/1). The respondent
filed O.A. No.

6755/2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the above
order of the Government. He contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
enquire into Charge-I and Charge-II which was defective in nature and,
accordingly, sought to quash the orders of the Government. The appellant filed
a detailed Counter Affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the position. The Tribunal
by its order dated 22.2. 2001 set aside the disciplinary orders of the
Government. The Government thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2001
before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated
6.6.2002 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein.

Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellants filed the above appeal.

Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
submitted that the charged officer, the respondent herein, was removed from
service by the Government as a disciplinary measure and that the possession of
assets disproportionate to the known sources of the income by the respondent,
is a misconduct as defined under Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules framed under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (in short `TDP') had jurisdiction to
enquire into the misconduct in terms of the TDP Act and the Rules made
thereunder. She further submitted that the opinion of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (in short `APAT') that the TDP had no jurisdiction to
enquire into the first charge which falls under the Prevention of Corruption
Act and which is a graver offence than the routine misconduct under the Conduct
Rules is erroneous. The learned Advocate submitted that the respondent has not
taken the objection regarding jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity and
since the charged officer generally raised such objections, the Government
refers the case to the TDP on 27.7.1995 and that having failed to take
objection at the earliest point of time, the Tribunal was not justified in
entertaining that plea. She also contested the correctness of the findings of
the Tribunal. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain
first charge framed against the charged officer in view of the amendment issued
in G.O.Ms. No. 514 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated
15.10.1994 amending sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the TDP Rules. It is further
contended that under the TDP Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the TDP is a
fact finding authority and that the findings recorded by the TDP could not have
been opposed by the Tribunal in as much as the Administrative Tribunal has no
such power. She further submitted that the Administrative Tribunal is not a
appellate authority and, therefore, he could not have acted as an appellate
authority over the findings recorded by the TDP and accepted by the Government.

At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, invited our
attention to Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 ( Act No.2 of 1960) which reads thus :

"Section 4 Cases to be referred to Tribunal The Government may refer
to the Tribunal for enquiry and report such as may be prescribed of allegations
of misconduct on the part of the Government servants." The above Section
was amended by Act 6 of 1993.

"Rule 3. The Government may, subject to the provision of Rule 4, refer
all cases of Officers, Gazetted or otherwise involving corruption, integrity,
enquired into by Anti-Corruption Bureau including cases of misappropriation
embezzlement investigated by Anti-Corruption Bureau or emanating otherwise and
which are considered not appropriate for prosecution in a court of law, to the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry and report under Section 4 of
the Act." Our attention was also drawn to G.O.Ms. No. 514 General
Administration (Services-C) Department dated 15.10.1994. By the said G.O., an
amendment was brought by sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 by substituting the following
Rule :

"(1) The Government may, subject to the provisions of rule 4, refer the
cases relating to the Gazetted an Non-Gazetted Officers in respect of matters
involving misconduct committed by them to the Tribunal for enquiry and report
under Section 4 of the Act." It is to be noticed that this Rule was in
force at the time of referring the case to the TDP.

It is pertinent to notice that Section 4 prior to its amendment by A.P. Act
6 of 1993 provided as under:

"4. Cases to be referred to Tribunal: The Government shall refer to the
Tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations
of misconduct on the part of government servants." Section 4 of the Act
which was in mandatory terms, was amended by A.P.Act 6 of 1993 and the word
"shall" occurring in Section 4 was replaced by the word
"may" which gave direction to the Government to refer or not to refer
the matter to the Tribunal. Section 4A which was inserted into particular Act
by the same amendment Act gave power to the Government to withdraw at any such
time any case from the Tribunal before its conclusion. The Section indicates
that the copies to refer or not to refer the case to the Tribunal for
disciplinary proceedings or withdraw any case already referred to the Tribunal
became available to the Government only after the amendment of the particular
Act by Act 6 of 1993.

Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while
answering the contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted
that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the charged
officer did not take objection to the jurisdiction of the TDP to entertain Charge-I
at the earliest opportunity is incorrect. The learned counsel contended that in
view of the directions issued by the High Court while disposing of the Writ
Petition No. 8798 of 1998 on 27.4.1998 reserving the liberty to the charged
officer to take all objections including the objection as regards jurisdiction
also. And, therefore, he submitted that the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is entertainable. The learned counsel next contended
that the second charge framed against the charged officer alleges breach of
Rule 9 of Conduct Rules whereas the Rule 6 contemplated prior permission at
all. The learned counsel submitted that under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the
Conduct Rules what is required is previous intimation to the Government to
acquire or dispose of any immovable property and the reporting of transaction
including movable property to the Government and to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9. Mr.
Satyanarayana, therefore submitted that framing of Charge- II is defective and,
therefore, the disciplinary action taken against the respondent should fall to
the ground on that account itself. Mr. Satyanarayana further contended that
there are a number of arithmetical and clerical mistakes in the order of TDP
and the TDP had not correctly appreciated the entire matter in its proper
perspective. At the time of hearing, he pointed out that certain deductions to
which respondent was entitled to was not taken into consideration while
calculating the disproportionate assets and pointed out the discrepancies here
and there from out of the orders passed by the TDP.

As it is a decision on a question of fact based evidence adduced, we are not
inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the TDP at this stage.

In the above background of facts and the contentions raised by the
respective counsel, we shall now proceed to consider the rival submissions.

Before proceeding further, we shall now reproduce both the charges framed
against the respondent herein :

"Charge No.1 : That you, Sri Adinarayana joined in Government Service
as Town Planning Assistant on 1.11.1965 in the Department of Town Planning at
Kakinada and subsequently you were promoted as Assistant Director in the year
1978 and as Deputy Director in May 1985 and while working as such during the
check period from 1.11.1965 to 1.10.1993, you actuated by the corrupt motive
and in abuse of your official position in order to gain pecuniary benefit for
yourself acquired assets worth Rs.

10,02,674/-, through your income was Rs.10,50,024/- and expenditure was
Rs.5,25,570/- and therefore, you are found in possession of disproportionate
assets to a tune of Rs.4,78,220/- and thereby you are guilty of misconduct
within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1991 framed under the A.P. Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 1993.

Charge No.II : That you have acquired the Assets i.e. house bearing No.
12-2-717/124, Sapthagiri Colony, Hyderabad in your name worth Rs.

2,23,000/- and one Maruti Car bearing Regn. No. AHU 5355 worth Rs.80,000/-
that also you were allotted 2000 shares of 225 partly convertible debentures in
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited on 21.3.1991 and 1.2.1993 in all
worth Rs.23,375/- and that you also purchased teak wood from Sri Venkateswara
Saw Mill, Sirpur worth Rs.

58,026/- without prior permission of the Competent Authority violating Rule
9 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby you are guilty of
misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1991 framed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Amendment Act, 1993." We have given
our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective counsel.
In the instant case, the TDP conducted an enquiry and examined all the relevant
records, material papers and witnesses and submitted their report to the
Government. The TDP held that the charged officer is guilty of misconduct within
the meaning of Section 2(b) of Rules framed under Andhra .Pradesh Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1991 from under Andhra
Pradesh Civil Services Tribunal Amendment Act, 1993 for having been in
possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 2,61,816/- disproportionate to the
known sources of income. In respect of the Charge-II, the charged officer was
found guilty of misconduct as there is violation of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh
Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964.

The Government after examining the report of the Tribunal and after
following the required procedure under the Rules, issued orders removing the
respondent from service by order dated 28.10.2000.

The Administrative Tribunal already noticed allowed the original application
filed by the respondent herein and set aside the orders issued by the
Government removing the respondent from service. In our opinion, the order
passed by the Tribunal in original application and the judgment rendered by the
High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein, is
contrary to law and erroneous.

The possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income is a
misconduct under the Conduct Rules as the delinquent officer was being charge-
sheeted for violation of Conduct Rules made under the provision of Article 309
of the Constitution of India. We have already reproduced the Andhra Pradesh
Civil Services Rules, 1960 which defined misconduct under Rule 2(b). The
finding of the Administrative Tribunal that the Tribunal for disciplinary
proceedings has no jurisdiction to interfere into the charge which falls under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not correct.. In our view, the
charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a graver offence than the
routine misconduct contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct
Rules. A grave misconduct does not cease to be a misconduct because it is
grave. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings in our view is competent to
examine the case. The TDP have examined 57 witnesses on the prosecution side
and 13 defence witnesses and have marked 129 exhibits for the prosecution which
were examined by the Tribunal together with 81 defence exhibits. A reading of
the entire proceedings of the TDP would show that the TDP has considered the
entire material placed before it and considered them in the proper perspective.

Reference was made to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the
Counsel for the respondent and it was contended that respondent could have been
proceeded against, only in accordance with rule framed under Article 309.
Article 309 empowers the legislature to frame rules to regulate the recruitment
and conditions of service of person appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs with the Union or the State. The respondent's plea
does not merit for consideration as the Government have examined the entire
report against him and entrusted the case to the TDP in public interest in
accordance with rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The
Government have clearly examined the report of the TDP and decided to impose a
major penalty under Rule 9 sub-clause (IX) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service
(Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

The first charge falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge is
that the respondent is possessing assets which are disproportionate to the
known sources of his income. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent that at the relevant time when this matter was referred to TDP and
the TDP has no jurisdiction to entertain the first charge, has no force. There
is no merit in the said contention. It is pointed out that there was an
amendment to Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules in G.O.Ms. 514 dated 15.10.1994. As per the above amendment to sub-rule
(1) of Rule 3, the Government may subject to the provisions of Rule 4 referred
to cases relating to Gazetted and the non-Gazetted Officers in respect of all
matters involving misconduct committed by them to the Tribunal for enquiry and
report under Section 4 of the Act. It is to be noticed that when the matter was
referred, this Rule alone was in force. Therefore, the TDP acquired the right
to investigate the cases that fall under Charge-I. It is not disputed that the
matter was referred to TDP on 21.7.1995 when the Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 514 dated
15.10.1994 was in force. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the TDP has no
right to entertain the first charge relating to the offence has no merits and
in view of the position stated above, the TDP was competent to entertain
Charge-I.

As regard Charge-II, it was contended that the charged officer has acquired
such an assets which included both immovable and movable properties without
prior permission as required under Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules. Rule 9 runs as
follows :

"Rule 9. Acquiring or disposing of movable or immovable property : (1)
No Government employee shall, except after previous intimation to Government,
acquire or dispose of, or permit any member of his family to acquire or dispose
of, any immoveable property by exchange, purchase, sale, gift, or otherwise,
either by himself or through others.

(2) A Government employee who enters into any transaction concerning any
movable property exceeding rupees twenty thousand in value, whether by way of
purchase, sale or otherwise, shall forthwith report such transaction to
Government:

Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a
regular or reputed dealer shall be with the previous sanction of
Government." Sub-rule (1) requires that before a Government employee
acquires, dispose of, or permit any member of his family to acquire or dispose
of, any immoveable property by exchange, purchase, sale, gift, or otherwise
either by himself or through others, he has to do so after previous intimation.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the requirement
of prior permission cannot be equated to statutory requirement of previous
intimation. It is true that intimation is intended to apprise the Government
whereas the prior permission is something positive on the part of the
Government without which the Government employee cannot acquire the assets. It
was also further contended that framing of the charge is materially defective
because acquisition of the property by itself does not constitute contravention
of Rule 9 of the said Rules.

We have read this charge in the light of allegations in support thereof. In
the instant case, it is not disputed that the respondent has neither supplied
any prior information on the Government nor did he send any prior intimation to
the Government.

By not doing this, he has contravened the provisions of Rule 9. The Tribunal
has also categorically held that the respondent has not applied for prior
information before he purchased the items from the competent authority nor he
intimated to the competent authority forthwith soon after the purchase of the several
items. Therefore, in our view, the charged officer has violated the Rule 9 of
the Conduct Rules and thus is guilty of misconduct within Rule 2H of the Andhra
Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993.

In view of the above-said finding we hold that respondent is guilty of both
the charges framed against him within the Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules of
1991 framed under amendment Act, 1993.

The order of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the
well-considered order of the TDP is unwarranted. The APAT cannot sit as a court
of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in
disciplinary proceedings.

Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has
accepted and which material reasonably supported the conclusion reached by the
disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the APAT to review the same
and reach a different conclusion. So, it is well settled that if the findings
recorded by the Tribunals or of the disciplinary authorities, are found to be
perverse, which are not based on the legal evidence, then the administrative
tribunal or the court is empowered to treat such flaw as a legal flaw and quash
the impugned action. In the instant case, the fact finding authority has based
its findings on legally permissible substantive evidence. And, therefore, such
a finding on fact based on substantive evidence is not permissible to be
interfered with.

In our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings of
the disciplinary authority or the tribunals. The truth or otherwise of the
charge, is a matter of the disciplinary authority to go into. The finding of
the court or tribunal under judicial review which, in our opinion, cannot
extend to the re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the
charge. In our view, the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of
appeal over a decision based on finding of the enquiry authority in
disciplinary proceedings. This court, time and again, categorically stated that
court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment where there is some
relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which
material has reasonable supports, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary
Tribunal, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the
same and reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority.

In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the
correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal but only a review of the
manner in which the decision was made. We have, therefore, no hesitation in
setting aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for reasons stated (supra).
The order passed by the Government removing the respondent from service is in
order and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant State stand allowed.
Further, there will be no order as to costs.